RSSArmed Citizens Defend Their Rights
Criminals have guns. Law abiding citizens have guns. And those in the hands of the latter deter the wanton killing of innocent people.
WEST PALM BEACH — It could’ve been a typical spat between grocery store customer and manager, with the customer announcing he planned to take his business elsewhere. But then the customer drew his gun. The store manager drew his and so did the assistant manager.
It all happened at 5 p.m. Monday at the IGA Supermarket at 1000 36th St. in West Palm Beach. And in the end, West Palm Beach police arrested customer Marshall Hugo Grant for attempted first-degree murder, shooting into an occupied dwelling, aggravated assault with a firearm and carrying a concealed firearm.
Police reported Tuesday morning that Grant, 73, entered the store through the exit despite manager Marino Hernandez’s warning not to enter that way. The confrontation escalated, Grant drew a handgun; assistant manager Roberto Espinal drew his handgun. Hernandez also pulled a gun. Grant backed out of the store, firing three times as he went, the arrest report states.
Of importance to note here is that the managers of the store never even had to return fire! The thug was deterred and kept at bay until police arrived without a shot being fired even though they would have been completely justified in putting a slug right between his eyes.
Had they not been armed I doubt the outcome would have been so positive.
Hey, someone call Fast Eddie “never heard of a defensive use of a firearm” Rendell!
Even Stevens Agrees – States Have Right To Know Who Votes
In a blow to perpetrators of voter fraud everywhere, the Supreme Court has settled the issue of identifying voters as they head to the polls to cast their votes.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.
When someone as liberal as Stevens agrees, you know you made a strong case. This will certainly not sit well with liberals who have been flooding the polls with illegitimate dead and multiple vote casting voters for years in order to mess up our Republic.
States and their citizens, as members of this Republic, certainly have a vested interest in making sure that the system of elections works properly and is not tampered with by fraudulent votes and there is nothing wrong with identifying people who come to vote an verify they are who they say they are. By extension they naturally have the right to ask that voters identify themselves as they enter the polls.
The only people that disagree with this fact are people who are trying to commit fraud in the system. And you can bet they are going to yell quite loudly and stomp their feet.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an interest in identifying voters as who they say they are, expect States that were holding back on such regulations, out of fear that the liberals on the Court would win out, to move forward.
53 Organizations Warn Congress
For Release: April 9, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110
or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Representatives of 53 Organizations Warn Congress, Public about Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act
Farm Bureaus, Manufacturers, Sportsmen, Taxpayer Advocates, Think-Tanks and Others Express Concern About Expansion of Federal Power
Washington, D.C. - A letter signed by representatives of over 53 organizations expressing grave concerns about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act, or CWRA, is being delivered to Congress this week.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has scheduled a hearing on CWRA for April 9. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by CWRA sponsor James Oberstar (D-MN), has a hearing scheduled April 16.
The letter says CWRA sponsors are wrong in claiming CWRA would restore the original intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Instead, the letter says, CWRA would greatly expand its scope.
The letter is signed by representatives of nineteen state farm bureaus. Other organizations with representatives signing include the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Family Farm Alliance, the Family Water Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, the California Land Institute, and very many public policy advocacy groups and think-tanks.
“The Clean Water Restoration Act would not restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act, but significantly expand it. It would expand federal clean water regulations to often dry land by re-defining dry lake beds, intermittent streams and, possibly, even tiny backyard fish ponds as ‘waters of the United States,’” said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which organized the letter. “This expansive federal power goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the original Clean Water Act in 1972.”
The letter also says CWRA would increase confusion within the already highly-litigated question of what waters are subject to regulation. Although the bill itself greatly expands federal power, as Congress’ authority to regulate waters rests on the Commerce Clause, those waters that have no impact on interstate commerce would be immune from the authority of the Act. Knowing which waters meet the Commerce Clause test could be nearly impossible for the average landowner, however. Many cases would be settled only after expensive and protracted litigation.
“Rather than eliminate the ambiguity of the original law, CWRA would codify it. Instead of providing clear, predictable standards of regulation, CWRA would punt these decisions to the courts,” said Ridenour.
This letter follows another letter, signed by 100 conservationists, family advocacy groups, civil rights leaders, sportsmen organizations, seniors advocates, think-tanks and taxpayer action groups in October 2007, expressing nearly identical concerns about CWRA. As hearings in the House and Senate about CWRA neared, this second letter was organized in response to demand from organizations concerned that the public, and many legislators, remain unaware of serious problems within this legislation.
The letter and list of signers is available online at www.nationalcenter.org/CWRA_Letter2_040908.pdf. The October letter can be found at www.nationalcenter.org/Clean_Water_Restoration_Act_Letter_100907.pdf.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C, now in its 26th year.
Barack Obama – Constitutional Nitwit For President
Warning: if you vote for Barack Obama you will get what you deserve – a dysfunctional fascist state ruled by arbitrary and capricious laws and standards. I know, we already sort of have that. But it will get worse under a Barack Obama presidency and you can say good-bye to the Constitution should he enter the White House.
Want an example of what I mean? Ok. During the last debate Barack Obama said this: “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right …” (source)
Really? Huh. Well apparently Mr. Obama hasn’t been reading his Constitution very much as of late. Perhaps he should read the 14th amendment which says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. You know, privileges or immunities such as … oh … the SECOND FREAKING AMENDMENT!
So what Barack Obama is saying is that local governments have the right to take away your rights? Well color me confused Comrade Obama! I thought our rights were “inalienable” which means beyond the reach of man and government! Check out the Declaration of Independence and try actually reading the Constitution for once and stop chopping it up into sound bites for consumption by an ignorant public.
Oh God, you are really as stupid as you sound aren’t you? But I’m sure equally stupid, ignorant and fascism loving Americans will turn out to vote for you in droves any way.
Obama Proposes MORE Government Control
I know, not a big surprise for a Marxist to make such a proposal right?
INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will push on Friday for passage of a bill to put the huge pay packages of some U.S. corporate executives under greater scrutiny.
The Illinois senator has introduced “say-on-pay” legislation that would give investors more of a voice in setting executive compensation packages.
“We’ve seen what happens when CEOs are paid for doing a job no matter how bad a job they’re doing. We can’t afford to postpone reform any longer,” Obama said in prepared remarks for delivery later on Friday.
“That’s why Washington needs to act immediately to pass this legislation.”
Now, anyone that actually has ever read the Constitution knows that no where in it is the authority for Congress to meddle with the way businesses conduct their business and how much they pay their employees. But your average liberal, including Barack Obama, has never apparently read that documents. And if he has either he failed to understand it or has just decided to ignore it like a good little authoritarian.
Companies set up their bylaws and procedures as they see fit. If they issue stock to the public in order to raise money no one forces people to buy those stocks or keep them if they don’t like the way the company operates. If a shareholder does not like the amount of money a company pays its executives or thinks they are doing a bad job, then they can sell their stock to someone who is interested.
My God! Did I just promote individual liberty and responsibility? You bet I did! The problem for Barack Obama is that those two ideas are so alien to him that he cringes at horror when they are even mentioned.
You don’t need a law. If someone is too stubborn to sell their stock because they don’t like the way the companies they are invested in operate that is their problem. It is not the problem of the federal government.
But, like I’ve been saying for years, there are enough ignorant voters out there who think that actions like those proposed by Obama are actually Constitutional and correct that he will get votes for proposing it.
Obama Doesn’t Really Believe in The Second Amendment
Barack Obama is your typically liberal. He says one thing that you think sounds good, but if you listen long enough you find out that what he says comes with all sorts of strings attached. Take, for example, his claim that he supports the second Amendment. Then however Obama turns around and says that his support comes with certain qualifications … such as not liking concealed carry. He also does what liberals often do and claim that there should be “common sense” restrictions.
Robert Novak has a column on this very topic:
Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation’s capital is constitutional. But Sen. Obama has not stated his position.
Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just the “well-regulated militia” cited in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local “common sense” restrictions on firearms. Does the Draconian prohibition for Washington, D.C., fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.
Yes, once again another liberal trying to make you believe that “shall not be infringed” really means “shall not be infringed unless we, who are smarter than you, think that it should be infringed”.
Obama isn’t half as smart as he and his apostles think he is. But people will still vote for him in droves of ignorant masses.
63% of America Socialists?
Well, that’s what you have to believe when you see a poll from Rasmussen stating that 63% of Americans believe that the government is not “doing enough” to help the economy:
Sixty-three percent (63%) of Americans say that the federal government is not doing enough to address the troubled U.S. economy. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 19% hold the opposite view and believe the government response has been adequate.
Although I am sure that SOME of that 63% are intelligent people who believe this because they don’t see the government moving fast enough to get the heck out of meddling in the economy, most of them are people that actually think it is the government’s job to “help” the economy.
That’s the same sort of attitude they had in the former Soviet Union. And see where it got them?
New Ozone Standards Will Jeopardize Economy
CAGW this month expressed disappointment that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bush Administration have decided to adopt a new national ambient air quality standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) for ozone. EPA data shows that 345 counties in the United States violate the new standard, more than four times the number of counties that cannot meet the current standard of 0.08 ppm. In order not to lose highway funds or face even stricter air quality standards, state and local governments may be forced to take drastic measures, such as placing severe controls on businesses, requiring huge capital outlays, or not issuing building permits for industries or other manufacturers, which will lead to lower economic growth and a loss of jobs. “It is ironic that on one hand the administration fought hard for passage of a stimulus package to spur the economy, while on the other hand, it is now ordering a lower ozone standard that will severely harm economic growth across the nation,” declared CAGW President Tom Schatz. According to the EPA, current regulations are already slated to reduce ground level ozone-causing emissions significantly over the next 20 years. For example, between 1980 and 2006, ozone dropped 21 percent. Read more about the new ozone standard.
http://www.cagw.org/site/R?i=R5tp3VTAHQ9yYikxTyJVSg..
Do We Really Have Private Property Any More?
When the government can claim that you have to pay taxes or it will take your land, are there really any property rights left in America anymore?
VIOLA, Wis. (AP) — A landowner with “strong anti-government attitudes” barricaded himself in his rural home Thursday and fired shots at SWAT officers trying to search his home and arrest him, authorities said. No one was injured.
The dispute started Monday when Richland County sheriff’s deputies tried to serve Robert Bayliss, 60, with a lawsuit seeking to evict him for failure to pay property taxes back to 2001 on his home and 18 acres, Richland county counsel Benjamin Southwick said.
The county took ownership of the land in November because of the unpaid taxes, Southwick said.
Rifle shots were fired at officers who went to the property Monday, said Darin Gudgeon, the Richland County emergency management director. On Thursday, SWAT officers used an armored vehicle to try to serve the search and arrest warrants but encountered shots and ended up in a standoff, Gudgeon said.No one has been hurt, he said.
This is why I have always hated the idea of “property taxes”. Because when you owe money to the government in order to keep what is supposed to be “private property” do you really have “private property” any more? Of course you don’t.
At the same time, governments do need to collect taxes to do what they need to do. The problem is that governments do far more than they “need” to do and thus taxes are outrageous. It’s a vicious cycle and events like this are going to become more and more common as citizens revolt against bloated government doing things that charities and churches are meant for while using taxes as a reason to take away our God given rights.
How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?
Washington, D.C. - As the U.S. Supreme Court considers its first major case involving the definition of the 2nd Amendment’s protection of gun rights in almost 70 years, black activists with the Project 21 leadership network assert that government should not be allowed to pick and choose what constitutional protections are honored and enforced.
“As a black American, I would be horrified to hear a state or local government enacted legislation or regulation that gutted the 13th Amendment’s prohibit on slavery or the 15th Amendment’s guarantee that all races could vote. Why aren’t more people outraged when the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee that individuals can protect themselves is infringed?” asks Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “Besides violating the 2nd Amendment, this case involving the District of Columbia’s gun ban is a violation of the fundamental rationale of law as well as immorally denying citizens the right to protect themselves.”
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, to be heard at 10:00 am Eastern on March 18, the justices will consider arguments about a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last spring that struck down the 1976 law that banned most gun ownership in the nation’s capital. This particular case is important from other recent gun rights cases heard by the Court because the nature of the case touches the core 2nd Amendment protection of an individual’s right to own a firearm.
“In Washington, criminals know that an unarmed citizen is easy prey. Right now, the criminals are winning because the city’s gun ban is effectively protecting the plunderer and punishing the property owner,” added Project 21’s Borelli. “The lower court verdict to restore power to the people to legally possess a suitable firearm will make criminals think twice about their actions, and it is something the Supreme Court should affirm.”
Borelli’s column on the case is available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVBorelliGuns90507.html.
For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Loading ...
-
-
Recommended Reading:
